<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I think Evan's points are sensible.<br>
<br>
I would add ― and hopefully it makes some sense ― that sometimes
organizations, governments, and other political body (even sometimes
including courts, Supreme Ones, too) go to great length to do
something, not for the sake of its *policy-effect*, but for the sake
of its *political-effect*, on its legitimacy [or insert your
favorite concept], on the ideological [your favorite concept]
structure underlying issues-axis, on the legal [normative or some
other concept] structure underlying issues-axis, or forother some
such long term strategical/structural reasons.<br>
<br>
There are more considerations than just stopping fraud'n phishin' to
this quandary. It is naive not to recognize this, not the other way
around. <br>
<br>
There is the issue of the GAC and GNSO's relationship with it. How
is option 1 helping this? We display strength, which is good, but we
don't harness any of it for future fights, which is bad. No
principles becomes enshrine with option 1, because obviously we say
nothing that will be lasting about *why* we do nothing. We stress
and gain (I suppose) the importance of process. Not so bad, but I
contend we could be doing more. The Board has few ally on its gTLD
plan and NCSG (and gNSO) is one of those few. There is missed
opportunity here. We should not ask for a legal study, we should
give RC its candy while coughing it in a legal language that will
have lasting effect. This is by far the best option we have. *How*
and *why* we act are more important than what we do in this instance
(I'm assuming we can give RC a candy in such a way as to gather
strength for future fights. I could be wrong. But I won't know until
we've explored and debated this). <br>
<br>
There is for instance the issue of the MSM relationship to both
technical and the global [not inter-national] community which needs
to be strengthen. <br>
<br>
Those political-jurisdictional-foundational issues aren't going
anywhere anytime soon. And the other issue-axis, well, they are
issue-axis! They are here to stay. Every time we have a chance to
put pressure our way on one of the many underlying political
foundation of ICANN/MSM, it is irresponsible to let it pass. Other
interests having differing preferred positions on some issue-axis
than NCSG does, don't usually miss out on any of those opportunity,
and they try to hammer home some ways that will not only lend them
victory on this issue short term, but also on the longer term on the
related axis. <br>
<br>
It is true that it doesn't help that we don't have a
simile-constitutional principles/jurisdictional/political set to
push. But I contend that whatever it is we are doing or not entails
and enables (if slightly) some simile-normative positions. When we
stay with more "technical" issues, and refrain from pushing more
political foundational stuff, we might be doing some prudent
good-governance but we are also actually missing out on advancing
some positions on debates that will come back. Crucially, others are
not so idle. <br>
<br>
Just laying these thoughts out there. I'm not assuming we can etch
out something quick in the dead of night here. And in the immediate
absence of some set of principles that bear longer term strategical
impact politically and around which we can work, then it might makes
sense to go the route of option 1. But I would contend that we would
need some more thoughts toward asserting our own preferred
foundation, derived from human rights and from the service to the
global community as it may.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/23/2012 2:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh3tRtEyV75O1RkHA-fcb5G=OXtbjOE7U1KjceLxpin8Yw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On 23 July 2012 13:54, David Cake <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au"
target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> As
far as the issue of charitable names being exploited for
fraudulent purposes, as discussed by Evan and Milton - it
seems to me, from discussions with the charities, that the
*real* solution that the charities need (and not just the
ICRC, with its unique legal protections, but ANY charity) is
basically a takedown solution like those provided by the APWG
etc. Fraud is fraud, we need good solutions to stop fraud -
but not only will special rules for the ICRC not have a large
effect on fraud targeted against charities in general, it
won't even eliminate fraud against the ICRC - much fraud
against the ICRC appears to use domain names that don't
include the specific protected designations redcross etc, but
just variations such as just <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://somethingrc.org" target="_blank">somethingrc.org</a>.
If the specific redcross term and other protected designations
were protected at the second level, we'd see fraudsters simply
switch to less preferred names, such as variations on namerc
type 2LD names, and 3LDs and such.</blockquote>
<div><br>
Agreed 100%.<br>
<br>
The kind of issue people in ALAC were responding to were the
short-term scam sites such as "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redcrosshaitirelief.com">redcrosshaitirelief.com</a>",
ones that specifically used the charity's name (specifically
its conventional Internet 2LD names) inside bogus 2LD strings.
As I mentioned in the earlier email, there's also agreement
that nothing is special about the Red Cross in this regard, I
would consider "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://unicefhaitifelief.org">unicefhaitifelief.org</a>"
or "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://oxfamhaitirelief.net">oxfamhaitirelief.net</a>"
to be just as bad.<br>
<br>
As such, I would remind that ALAC has never been in favour of
any Red Cross or IOC or IGO restrictions on TLDs -- ever. Some
of you may recall that I was in the room near the end of the
g-council debate on the issue in San Jose, ready if necessary
to detail ALAC's just-passed statement supporting the NCSG
position. There is similarly no belief in special treatment
for IGOs, *especially* considering that most of them possess
the rare qualifications for the exclusive .int TLD already. So
our position on gTLDs is still one of no change to existing
policy.<br>
<br>
Furthermore... I never, in my original comment, suggested that
prior restriction -- at any level -- was our direction, only
that a legitimate larger issue, buried within the RC/IOC/IGO
mess, did bare consideration. We don't claim the answer yet,
just ask the question (that indeed does not yet appear to have
been asked -- in all these years -- from the PoV of the end
user rather than the registrants.) There are many possible
approaches, not all of which have had a proper hearing to
date. We're totally aware of the limitations of ICANN and
domain names, and that removing obviously fraudulent strings
won't eliminate phishing or fraud. But it is also wrong to
refuse to do anything because no solution can be complete. And
denying of scammers the ability to use (clearly) fraudulent
domain names impairs their ability to do SEO to increase
traffic to their sites.<br>
<br>
ICANN's denial of responsibility for cleaning up a problem
that its policy enabled (ie, creation of fraudulent domains)
simply offers useful ammunition to those who would dispense
with the multi-stakeholder model completely, through
demonstrating that one significant stakeholder -- the end user
being scammed -- is going unheard by the MSM.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Their
is a fundamental difference between the ICRC arguments based
on its special legal status, and arguments based on the ICRCs
mission and specific operation concerns. The arguments based
on the ICRCs special legal status are one thing. But the
arguments based on the humanitarian mission and operational
concerns of the iCRC could just as easily apply to
organisations such as the MSF or UNHCR. I wish a lot more of
the effort that has gone into the ICRCs arguments had gone
into practical fraud takedown measures that would be
applicable to all charitable organisations.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
Agreed. IMO, ALAC is seeking to drive this forward in a useful
manner, by steering and focusing (rather than outright
rejecting) the claims in a manner that benefits the public
interest.<br>
It would be nice if we could do this together with the NCSG,
which is why I'm writing this.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
- Evan<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>